🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 14 May 2008 03:54:52 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote:

>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message 
>news:6m4k2498q4lttontic72d1s5l6e9ipo51v@4ax.com...

>| >If this second ring is concentric with the rotating ring then it IS 
>rotating
>| >in the
>| >opposite direction in frame of reference, and if not then it is orbiting 
>my
>| >ring,
>| >crossing my sky as I turn just as the sun does. Indeed, the Earth and Sun
>| >are
>| >two such rings.
>| >  I've intelligently read carefully and find you have not made adequate
>| >definition
>| >for me to understand your intent at this stage.
>|
>| Of course the second ring is concentric. it is right next to the gyro 
>ring.
>
>
>
>It can't be right next to, left next to, front next to or back next to, it
>can only be above next to or below next to. There is no "of course"
>about it, your descriptions are vague and imprecise. Just because
>you know what you mean doesn't mean anybody else does.

Stop acting dumb.....I assume you're acting....
The two rings are parallel and adjacent. Have a look at the back wheels of the
next semi-trailer that goes past. 
What happens if the brakes are put on one and not the other....jacked up of
course.

>| >| At  certain instant, you emit two pulses of light in opposite 
>directions
>| >around
>| >| the ring. You also place a mark on the nonrotating ring.
>| >|
>| >| What happens to the mark?
>| >| Answer: it appears to move away from you at v.
>| >
>| >Not at all, it moves away at v.sin(t), eventually returning.
>|
>| The movement is only a couple of light wavelengths at the most.
>| You can assume the movement is in a straight line and is just vt..
>
>Are you saying ring microwave gyroscopes won't work?
>I don't ASSUME anything, Wilson, especially when there is no need to.

the movement is straight.
Forget the fucking sine.

>You are less intelligent so can't possibly see what's going on.
>READ CAREFULLY as I do.
>
>THE MARK MOVES AWAY AT V.SIN(T), EVENTUALLY RETURNING.
>Fucking physicists, hopeless at mathematics, clueless the lot of them.

The pulse moves away at c in the rotating frame and eventually returns.
The mark moves only a few microns at most during that time interval.

>| >| By the time the pulses return, the mark has moved a distance vt away.
>| >
>| >The pulses never return, they travel directly away from me in opposite
>| >directions and continue forever.
>|
>| We are discussing a ring gyro in which total internal reflection occurs. 
>As far
>| as this argument is concerned the rays move in straight lines.
>
>
>Ok, so far I have read carefully and:
>i) the mark is stationary and moves.

The mark is stationary in the inertial frame but moves in the rotating frame.
Relativists are incapable of understanding that.
 
>ii) the mark moves in a straight line.

Near enough.

>iii) arcs are straight lines.

A micron long arc on a 10cm circle is as good as straight.

>iv) the light reflects from total internal reflection by sqrt(2), you once 
>said.

I did not.

>v) the world is flat.

My neighbour's tennis court is....but he's quite round.

>vi) You are upside down.

Not in polar coordinates.

>vii) You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.

I might be a specialist in teaching physics to engineers but sometimes the
pupils are incapable of learning.


>| >That's a very poor programming technique, you have only to make
>| >a typographical error in "3.14259265" somewhere and you'll never spot it,
>| >whereas by writing "pi = 3.14159265" at the beginning it is defined
>| >throughout.
>| >I never write 3.141592653589790
>| > as a value in excel, I use pi() instead.
>| >
>| >
>| >Grandpa doesn't ride the carousel, Wilson, only the kids do that.
>| >  http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>|
>| In a ring gyro, the detector rides the ring.
>
>The detector is not where the rays meet "in phase" going in opposite
>directions, Wilson, or it wouldn't detect anything. First, one of the rays
>has to meet a reflector "in which total internal reflection occurs" so that
>it goes the same way as the other ray.

The 'reflector' is a half silvered plain mirror. It doesn't involve internal
reflection.

>
>|
>| >| Of course YOU have no way of knowing that the mark represents the 
>original
>| >| position of the emission point or that you are rotating with a 
>peripheral
>| >speed
>| >| of v. You have every reason to believe that both pulses move away from 
>you
>| >at c
>| >| and travel the same distance, 2piR in the same time. You are therefore
>| >| mystified by the fact that they are not in phase when they reunite.
>| >
>| >I'm not mystified at all, Wilson, but you are.
>| >When two kids pace their way around the carousel matching step for step
>| >they arrive "in phase" back at the start point. Only when they step off
>| >and one rides the moving sidewalk and the other does not do they get
>| >"out of phase" because one is travelling faster than the other.
>|
>| In a ring gyro stuck in an aeroplane, the kids don't ever get off.
>
>You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
>READ CAREFULLY as I do.
>They walk around in a circle at the tail, collide (in step) and
>walk down the aisle of the plane at different speeds, one arriving
>at the flight deck before the other. The captain sees which one
>arrived first and knows which way his plane is rotating. It doesn't
>work if he's at the tail.

That's the SR/aether analysis.
You have revealed your true beliefs.

>
>
>|
>| >Here's some pictures of it:
>| >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnac.gif
>| >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RealSagnacFixed.gif
>|
>| What in christ's name is that?
>
>Georges Sagnac was not christ, you dumb bastard.
>You are less intelligent so you can't possibly see what's going on.
>READ CAREFULLY as I do.
>It is Sagnac's original sketch, animated by me.

It's wrong.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg 
shows a four mirror sagnac interferomete works.

>| >| This is a perfect example of how the use of rotating frames can be
>| >misleading.
>| >| In fact, the rays travel different distances EVEN IN THE ROTATING 
>FRAME.
>| >| AND their wavelengths are the same.
>| >
>| >In fact you are stupidly wrong and misleading only yourself, in fact,
>| >actually, and that's a fact. It is also a fact that anyone starting a
>| >sentence with "in fact" is in fact about to lie through their fucking
>| >teeth in an attempt to misleadingly convince themselves, in fact, 
>actually.
>| >You are full of shit, Wilson.
>|
>| I was being facetious when I said "you are more intelligent than the 
>rest".
>
>Not at all, you were in fact actually correct for a change and that's a 
>fact, actually.

:)  
You don't even agree that a 1 micron arc of a 10cm circle is effectively
straight.


>| >| We're only interested in rotation here not linear movement or position.
>| >| Rotation is absolute. Every rotating object has an associated 
>nonrotating
>| >frame
>| >| perpendicular to and at rest with its axis of rotation.
>| >|
>| >You are full of shit, Wilson.
>|
>| Engineers obviously aren't aware that rotation is absolute.
>
>Aussie sheep shaggers obviously hallucinate an arc is a straight line, in 
>fact, actually.
>In fact rotation is relative, actually, and that's a fact.

Rotation is absolute no matter what configuration. It can be detected
ABSOLUTELY.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....